Nafija Bibi vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 8 December, 2025

[Cites 55, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Nafija Bibi vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 8 December, 2025

2. "Nothing is more cowardly and unconscionable than a person in police custody being beaten up and nothing inflicts a deeper wound on our constitutional culture than a State official running berserk regardless of human rights". This was so observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kishore Singh Ravinder Dev etc. versus State of Rajasthan AIR 1981 SC 625).

3. Dr. Martin Luther King had observed that "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere" and these golden words were thereafter Page 1 of 35 reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kishore Singh Ravinder Dev's case (supra).

4. The instant petition has been filed for the benefit of one Kayum Chaudhary through his sister-in-law wherein extremely serious allegations of blatant violation of human rights and dignity and custodial torture have been set out against the Officer-in-Charge, Chainpur Police Station, District-Gumla.

5. It is averred that the Officer-in-Charge arrested Kayum Chaudhary without registering any FIR or without disclosing any ground of arrest and was taken to police station on 01.12.2025 without any rhyme and reason. When the petitioner and the family member approached the police station, the officer-in-charge said that there are no charges against him but his father-in-law is the culprit. The Officer-

in-Charge abused the petitioner and his family members and threatened them with serious consequences. Thereafter Kayum Chaudhary was illegally detained and kept in custody by the Officer-in-Charge without any formal charges against him and then was tortured in the police station and severely beaten up. In support of such contention, a copy of the photograph has been appended with the petition which clearly establishes that Kayum Chaudhary had been beaten blue black and in fact had to be referred to RIMS for X-ray investigation and management by the Community Health Centre, Bharno, Gumla.

6. This petition came up before this Court on 03.12.2025 and the Court passed the following orders:

"02/Dated: 03.12.2025 Page 2 of 35

1) As the allegations made out in the instant application is of serious nature, let this application filed by the petitioner be registered by the Registry as a Public Interest Litigation, without insisting upon the Court fee.

2)Issue notice to respondents.

3)Mr. Piyush Chitresh, A.C. to learned A.G., accepts notice for all respondents and waives service.

4)Let Superintendent of Police, Gumla appear before this Court tomorrow at 10:30 a.m. along with the records of the case in which the husband of the petitioner was taken into police custody and alleged to have been beaten there in the Chainpur Police Station, as well as the recordings of DVR of the CCTV Cameras installed in the Chainpur Police Station.

5)List this case tomorrow i.e. on 04.12.2025 at 10:30 a.m."

7. Today, Mr. Haris Bin Zaman, the Superintendent of Police, Gumla has appeared in person and has at the outset submitted that there is no CCTV Camera installed in the Chainpur Police Station, therefore, the DVR and CCTV footage could not be produced.

8. In addition thereto he has informed the Court that as regards Kayum Chaudhary, for the time being, is not the accused in any case but since he was in regular touch over the mobile phone with one of the accused, therefore, he was detained on ground of suspicion. However, after being informed about the beating given to Kayum, he has already placed the Officer-in-Charge, Chainpur Police Station under suspension vide order no 1088 /2025 dated 03.12.2025, which reads as under:-

गुमला िजलादे श सं ० 1088/2025 ा सूचनानूसार ूम चौधरी नामक को चै नपुर थाना के पु िलस पदािधकारी ारा िदनां क-01.12.2025 को िबना िकसी ाथिमकी के चैनपु र थाना लाया गया तथा चैनपुर थाना लाये जाने के प ात उ के साथ थाना कै स म मारिपट कर िदनां क-02.12.2025 को थाना से छोड़ा गया।

Page 3 of 35

उ घटना की जॉच इस कायालय ापां क-2433/गो०, िदनां क- 03.11.2025 के मा म से अनुम ल पु िलस पदािधकारी, चैनपु र को िदया गया।

अनुम ल पुिलस पदािधकारी, चैनपु र ारा अपने कायालय ापां क-694/2025, िदनां क-03.12.2025 के मा म से जाँ च ितवे दन समिपत िकया गया है । अनुम ल पुिलस पदािधकारी, चै नपु र ने अपने जाँ च ितवे दन म उ े ख िकया है िक थाना भारी, चैनपु र ारा ु म चौधरी, िजनके िव कोई काण् ड/सं े य अपराध दज नहीं था, को पुछताछ हे तु बु लाकर थाना म रखना तथा उनके साथ मारिपट करना ायसं गत नहीं है ।

अतः उ कृ के िलए पु ०अ०िन० कृ कुमार, थाना भारी चै नपु र थाना को सामा जीवन-यापन भ ा पर िनलंिबत िकया जाता है । िनलंबन अविध के दौरान इनका मु ालय पुिलस के , गु मला होगा।

Sd/-

पुिलस अधी क गुमला ।

 ापां क- 2434/गो०,                         पु िलस अधी क का कायालय, गुमला
                                                  गुमला, िदनां क 03-12-2025
 ितिलिप :-

1.    अनुम    ल पुिलस पदािधकारी, चै नपुर को सूचनाथ एवं आव       क ि याथ ।
2.     पुिलस उपाधी क (मु ०), गुमला को सूचनाथ एवं आव        क ि याथ ।
3.    अंचल िनरी क, चै नपुर अंचल को सू चनाथ एवं आव        क ि याथ ।
4.    प रचारी वर, पु िलस के , गु मला को सूचनाथ एवं आव        क ि याथ ।
5.     २०अ०िन० थम पु िलस के , गुमला को सूचनाथ एवं आव           क ि याथ ।

6. भारी लेखा शाखा /HRMS शाखा, पु िलस पु िलस अधी क कायालय, गु मला को सूचनाथ एवं आव क ि याथ ।

7. पु०अ०िन० कृ कुमार, थाना भारी, चै नपुर थाना को सू चनाथ एवं आव क ि याथ।

Sd/-

पुिलस अधी क गुमला ।

English Translation Gumla District Order No. 1088/2025 According to information received, a person named Qayum Choudhary was brought to Chainpur Police Station by the Police Officer of Chainpur Police Station on 01.12. 2025, without registering any FIR. After being brought to Chainpur Police Station, the said person was beaten up in the police station campus and thereafter released from the police station on 02.12.2025.

The investigation of the aforesaid incident was handed over to the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Chainpur, vide this Office Memo No. 2433/Go. dated 03.11.2025. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Chainpur has submitted its investigation report vide his Office Memo No. 694/2025, dated 03.12.2025. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Page 4 of 35 Chainpur has mentioned in his investigation report that it was unfair to call Qayum Choudhary at the police station for interrogating, further detaining and beaten him up though no case/cognizable offence was registered against him by the Officer In-charge, Chainpur.

Therefore, Police Sub-Inspector Krishna Kumar, Officer In- charge, Chainpur Police Station is suspended for the aforesaid act. Subsistence allowance shall be payable to him. He shall report to the headquarters Police Line, Gumla during the period of suspension.

Sd/-

Superintendent of Police, Gumla.

Office of the Superintendent of Police, Gumla, Memo No. 2434/Go, Gumla, Date: 03-12-2025 Copy to:

1. Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Chainpur, for information and necessary action.

2. Deputy Superintendent of Police (Mu.), Gumla, for information and necessary action.

3. Circle Inspector, Chainpur Circle, for information and necessary action.

4. Seargent Major, Police Line, Gumla, for information and necessary action.

5. Reserved Sub-Inspector, First Police Station, Gumla, for information and necessary action.

6. In-charge, Accounts Branch/HRMS Branch, Police, Office of Superintendent of Police, Gumla, for information and necessary action.

7. Police Sub-Inspector Krishna Kumar, Officer In-charge, Chainpur Police Station, for information and necessary action.

Sd/-

Superintendent of Police, Gumla.

गुमला िजलादे श सं ० 1089/2025 ा सूचनानूसार ूम चौधरी नामक को चै नपुर थाना के पु िलस पदािधकारी ारा िदनां क-01.12.2025 को िबना िकसी ाथिमकी के चैनपु र थाना लाया गया तथा चैनपुर थाना लाये जाने के प ात उ के साथ थाना कै स म मारिपट कर िदनां क-02.12.2025 को थाना से छोड़ा गया।

उ घटना की जॉच इस कायालय ापां क-2433/गो०, िदनां क- 03.11.2025 के मा म से अनुम ल पु िलस पदािधकारी, चैनपु र को िदया गया। अनुम ल पुिलस पदािधकारी, चैनपु र ारा अपने कायालय ापां क-694/2025, Page 5 of 35 िदनां क-03.12.2025 के मा म से जाँ च ितवे दन समिपत िकया गया है । अनुम ल पुिलस पदािधकारी, चै नपु र ने अपने जाँ च ितवे दन म उ े ख िकया है िक ुम चौधरी, िजनके िव कोई का /सं े य अपराध दज नहीं था, को पुछताछ हे तु बुलाकर थाना म लाकर रखना तथा उनके साथ मारिपट करना ायसं गत नहीं है ।

अतः उ कृ म शािमल 1. पु०अ०िन० िदने श कुमार, 2. स०अ०िन० न िकशोर महतो एवं 3. स०अ०िन० िनमल राय को त ाल भाव से लाइन हािजर िकया जाता है ।

Sd/-

पुिलस अधी क गुमला ।

     ापां क- 2435/गो०,                           पु िलस अधी क का कायालय, गुमला
                                                 गु मला, िदनां क 03-12-2025
     ितिलिप :-

1.        अनुम    ल पुिलस पदािधकारी, चै नपुर को सूचनाथ एवं आव       क ि याथ ।
2.         पुिलस उपाधी क (मु ०), गुमला को सूचनाथ एवं आव         क ि याथ ।
3.        अंचल िनरी क, चै नपुर अंचल को सू चनाथ एवं आव         क ि याथ ।
4.        प रचारी वर, पु िलस के , गु मला को सूचनाथ एवं आव        क ि याथ ।
5.         २०अ०िन० थम पु िलस के , गुमला को सूचनाथ एवं आव           क ि याथ ।

7. पु०अ०िन० कृ कुमार, थाना भारी, चै नपु र थाना को सू चनाथ एवं आव क ि याथ।

Sd/-

पुिलस अधी क गुमला ।

English Translation Gumla District Order No. 1089/2025 According to information received, a person named Qayum Choudhary was brought to Chainpur Police Station by the Police Officer of Chainpur Police Station on 01.12. 2025, without registering any FIR. After being brought to Chainpur Police Station, the said person was beaten up in the police station campus and thereafter released from the police station on 02.12.2025.

The investigation of the aforesaid incident was handed over to the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Chainpur, vide this Office Memo No. 2433/Go. dated 03.11.2025. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Chainpur has submitted its investigation report vide his Office Memo No. 694/2025, dated 03.12.2025. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Chainpur has mentioned in his investigation report that it was unfair to call Qayum Choudhary at the police station for interrogating, further detaining and beaten him up though no case/cognizable offence was registered against him by the Officer In-charge, Chainpur.

Page 6 of 35

Therefore, 1. P.S.I. Dinesh Kumar, 2. A.S.I. Nandkishor Mahto and 3. A.S.I. Nirmal Rai, being involved in this act are directed to report to the police line with immediate effect.

Sd/-

Superintendent of Police, Gumla.

Office of the Superintendent of Police, Gumla, Memo No. 2435/Go. Gumla, Date: 03-12-2025 Copy to:

1. Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Chainpur, for information and necessary action.

2. Deputy Superintendent of Police (Mu.), Gumla, for information and necessary action.

3. Circle Inspector, Chainpur Circle, for information and necessary action.

4. Seargent Major, Police Line, Gumla, for information and necessary action.

5. Reserved Sub-Inspector, First Police Station, Gumla, for information and necessary action.

6. In-charge, Accounts Branch/HRMS Branch, Police, Office of Superintendent of Police, Gumla, for information and necessary action.

7. All the concerned police officers, Chainpur Police Station, for information and necessary action.

Sd/-

Superintendent of Police, Gumla.

9. Justice R.K. Abichandani in his Article relating to custodial violence while referring to 'Custody' had observed as under:-

"Custody The very idea of a human being in custody save for protection and nurturing is an anathema to human existence. The word custody implies guardianship and protective care. Even when applied to indicate arrest or incarceration, it does not carry any sinister symptoms of violence during custody. No civilized law postulates custodial cruelty -an inhuman trait that springs out of a perverse desire to cause suffering when there is Page 7 of 35 no possibility of any retaliation; a senseless exhibition of superiority and physical power over the one who is overpowered or a collective wrath of hypocritic thinking."

10. In the same Article, he has referred to 'The Universal and Constitutional Concern' which reads thus:-

"The Universal Concern (1) The Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948, adopted and proclaimed by the General Assembly Resolution 217A(III) of 10th December, 1948 declared in the preamble that recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world. Article 1 proclaimed that all human beings are born free and equal, in dignity and rights. In Article 3 it proclaimed that everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person, and in Article 5 that no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The presumption of innocence of a person charged with a penal offence until proved guilty as contained in Article 11(a) is meant to insulate him against any high-handed treatment by the authorities dealing with him in the matter. (2) Article 7 of the International Covenant on civil and Political Rights, 1966 adopted by the General Assembly resolution dated 16th December, 1966 covenanted that no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Under Article 10 of the said Covenant all persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person and the accused persons shall, save in exceptional circumstances, be segregated from convicted persons and shall be subject to separate treatment appropriate to their status as unconvicted persons. The minimum guarantees to which everyone charged with a criminal offence, is entitled in full equality covenanted in Art. 14(3), inter-alia, provide that no shall be compelled to testify Page 8 of 35 against himself or to confess guilt, which obviously will rule out use of force of any kind on a person accused of any crime. (3) The American Convention of Human Rights 1969 which came into force in July, 1978, declares under Article 4(1) that every person has the right to have his life respected and this right shall be protected by law. Under Article 5, the right of every person to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected is recognized and it is covenanted between the States who are parties to this convention that no one shall be subject to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment or treatment and that all persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.

Right to human treatment recognized by Article 5 cannot be suspended even in time of war, public danger, or other emergency situation, as declared in Article 27 of this Convention. VI. The Constitutional Concern Respect for human dignity is thus not a matter for any deep study in axiology for an estimate of comparative values in ethical, social or an aesthetic problem but a matter of acknowledging a simple truth already recognized by our national document when its opening chant exudes the cultural nobility of a fraternity that assures the dignity of the individual. The Constitution recognizes it to be fundamental in the governance of the country that the State shall direct its policy to secure conditions of freedom and dignity and insulates against all forms of tyranny against mind and body and their freedom to grow fearlessly. All custodial safeguards in the constitutional and other laws are meant to protect human dignity and shun barbaric approaches. This is why no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself [Art.20(3), a person is entitled to know why he is arrested for being detained in custody and to consult a legal practitioner of his choice [Art. 22(1), there is prohibition of traffic in human beings and forced labour (Art. 23), and, above all, that mother of Page 9 of 35 all rights, the right to protection of life and personal liberty (Art.

21).

The right to live with human dignity enshrined in Art. 21 derives its life and breath from the directive principles of State policy particularly clauses (e) and (f) of Article 39 and Articles 41 and 42 as held by the Supreme Court in Bandhua Mukti Morcha case. [see (1984)3 SCC 161 & (1991) 4 SCC 417]."

11. Every illegal detention irrespective of its duration, and every custodial violence irrespective of its degree and magnitude, is outright condemnable and per se actionable.

12. In prem Chand ( Paniwala) v. Union of India and others (1981) 1 SCC 639, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the issue as to who will police the police, it made the following pertinent observations:-

"Who will police the police? Is freedom of move-ment unreasonably fettered if policemen are given power of externment for public peace? These twin problems of disturbing import, thrown up by this bizarre case, deserve serious examination. The former is as important as the latter, especially when we view it in the strange police setting painted by the petitioner. The constitutional question, which we will state presently and discuss briefly, has become largely otiose so far as the present petitioner is concerned because counsel for the State has assured the court that they will drop police surveillance or any action by way of externment as proposed earlier. The police methodology, with sinister potential to human liberty described by the petitioner, if true, deserves strong disapproval and constitutional counteraction by this Court. But before committing ourselves to any course, we must set out the factual matrix from which the present case springs.

Page 10 of 35

5. Certain facts emerge as fairly probable from the affidavits of both sides. Prem Chand made a living as a paniwala or vendor of soft drinks near Delite Cinema even as a teenager, which shows that he had very poor beginnings. How did he fall into the thraldom of the local police? He explains it in his affidavit:

He had a few mobile carts which were used for refrigerating water. These carts used to be parked by the petitioner on the roadside due to the idulgence of the police. He was in his teens when he started his avocation and continued for a very long time. Thus, he acquired an alias i.e. Prem Chand Paniwala. Due to close association with police and their connivance and indulgence, the petitioner thrived. In this process, the petitioner became a prey and pawn in the hands of the police. He was persuaded to be their perpetual stooge and stock witness. The petitioner in the year 1965, when he was 25 years old was involved in a gambling case by the police to mould him a permanent stock witness and lest he should be militant to defy them. Despite his hesitation and unwillingness he was forced to become a permanent pawn of the police. This is how, the petitioner landed himself in the web of the police; he had no alternative than to be like that as his livelihood was dependent upon the mercy and indulgence of the police.

The version of the petitioner is that once he yielded to the pressure of the police to give false testimony disclosing a rubberised conscience and un-veracious readiness to forswear himself, there was escalation of demands upon him and he became a regular pedlar of perjury 'on police service'. Indeed, counsel for the petitioner argued that his client was a 'stock witness' because he had to keep the police in good humour and obliged them with tailored testimony in around 3,000 cases because the alternative was police wrath. We were flabbergasted at this bizarre confession but to lend credence to his assertion counsel produced a few hundred summonses where the petitioner was cited as a witness. Were he not Page 11 of 35 omnipresent how could he testify in so many cases save by a versatile genius for loyal unveracity? For sure, the consternation of the community at this flood of perjury will shake its faith in the veracity of Police investigation and the validity of the judicial verdict. We have no doubt that the petitioner, who has given particulars of a large number of cases where he had been cited as witness, is speaking the truth even assuming that 3,000 cases may be an exaggeration. In Justice, Justices and Justicing and likewise in the Police and Policing, the peril to the judicial process is best left to imagination if professional perjurers like the self-confessed Paniwala are kept captive by the police, to be pressed into service for proving 'cases'. Courts, trusting the police may act on apparently veracious testimony and sentence people into prison. The com- munity, satisfied with such convictions, may well believe that all is well with law and order. We condemn, in the strongest terms, the systematic pollution of the judicial process and the consequent threat to human rights of innocent persons. We hope that the higher authorities in the Department who, apparently, are not aware of the nefarious goings-on at the lesser levels will immediately take measures to stamp out this unscrupulous menace.

10.Having made these observations, we leave the question of vires open for final investigation, if necessary, in other cases pending before this Court. We think counsel for the State was right in representing that no further action would be taken against the petitioner. We dispose of the petition as calling no longer for directions but emphasise the need of the State to issue clear orders to the Police Department to free the processes of investigation and prosecution from the contamination of concoction through the expediency of stockpiling of stock witnesses. To police persons who get rich quick by methods not easily or licitly understandable, is perhaps a social service. Among the list of wanted persons must Page 12 of 35 be not only the poor suspects but the dubious rich. To keep an eye on their activities, without close shadowing and surveillance may, perhaps, lead to criminal discoveries, if they are not too influential for the police. By this judgment what we mean is not to tell the police to fold up their hands and remain inactive when anti-social elements suddenly grow in wealth, but to be activist and intelligent enough to track down those who hold the nation's health, wealth, peace and security in jeopardy.

The only insistence is that the means must also be as good as the ends."

13. In D.K. Basu v. State of W.B. (1997) 1 SCC 416, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had expressed its concern as to how to safeguard the dignity of the individual and balance the same with the interest of the State or Investigative Agency. Therein, the Court, dealt with the issue custodial violence and clearly rule, interrogation though essential must be on scientific principles, third degree method are impermissible, balance approach should be there so that criminals do not go scot-free.

Various guidelines were also issued which are still holding the field.

The relevant observations as contained in para 9,10,11, 12,22,28, 29,31, 33 read as under;-

"9. The importance of affirmed rights of every human being need no emphasis and, therefore, to deter breaches thereof becomes a sacred duty of the Court, as the custodian and protector of the fundamental and the basic human rights of the citizens. Custodial violence, including torture and death in the lock-ups, strikes a blow at the rule of law, which demands that the powers of the executive should not only be derived from law but also that the same should be limited by law. Custodial violence is a matter of concern. It is aggravated by the fact that it is committed by persons who are supposed to be the Page 13 of 35 protectors of the citizens. It is committed under the shield of uniform and authority in the four walls of a police station or lock-up, the victim being totally helpless. The protection of an individual from torture and abuse by the police and other law- enforcing officers is a matter of deep concern in a free society. These petitions raise important issues concerning police powers, including whether monetary compensation should be awarded for established infringement of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. The issues are fundamental.

10. "Torture" has not been defined in the Constitution or in other penal laws. "Torture" of a human being by another human being is essentially an instrument to impose the will of the "strong" over the "weak" by suffering. The word torture today has become synonymous with the darker side of human civilisation.

"Torture is a wound in the soul so painful that sometimes you can almost touch it, but it is also so intangible that there is no way to heal it. Torture is anguish squeezing in your chest, cold as ice and heavy as a stone, paralyzing as sleep and dark as the abyss. Torture is despair and fear and rage and hate. It is a desire to kill and destroy including yourself."

11. No violation of any one of the human rights has been the subject of so many Conventions and Declarations as "torture"

-- all aiming at total banning of it in all forms, but in spite of the commitments made to eliminate torture, the fact remains that torture is more widespread now than ever before. "Custodial torture" is a naked violation of human dignity and degradation which destroys, to a very large extent, the individual personality. It is a calculated assault on human dignity and whenever human dignity is wounded, civilisation takes a step backward -- flag of humanity must on each such occasion fly half-mast.

Page 14 of 35

12. In all custodial crimes what is of real concern is not only infliction of body pain but the mental agony which a person undergoes within the four walls of police station or lock-up. Whether it is physical assault or rape in police custody, the extent of trauma, a person experiences is beyond the purview of law.

22. Custodial death is perhaps one of the worst crimes in a civilised society governed by the rule of law. The rights inherent in Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution require to be jealously and scrupulously protected. We cannot wish away the problem. Any form of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment would fall within the inhibition of Article 21 of the Constitution, whether it occurs during investigation, interrogation or otherwise. If the functionaries of the Government become law-breakers, it is bound to breed contempt for law and would encourage lawlessness and every man would have the tendency to become law unto himself thereby leading to anarchanism. No civilised nation can permit that to happen. Does a citizen shed off his fundamental right to life, the moment a policeman arrests him? Can the right to life of a citizen be put in abeyance on his arrest? These questions touch the spinal cord of human rights' jurisprudence. The answer, indeed, has to be an emphatic "No". The precious right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be denied to convicts, undertrials, detenus and other prisoners in custody, except according to the procedure established by law by placing such reasonable restrictions as are permitted by law.

28. Police is, no doubt, under a legal duty and has legitimate right to arrest a criminal and to interrogate him during the investigation of an offence but it must be remembered that the law does not permit use of third-degree methods or torture of accused in custody during interrogation and investigation with a view to solve the crime. End cannot justify the means. The interrogation and investigation into a crime should be in true Page 15 of 35 sense purposeful to make the investigation effective. By torturing a person and using third-degree methods, the police would be accomplishing behind the closed doors what the demands of our legal order forbid. No society can permit it.

29. How do we check the abuse of police power? Transparency of action and accountability perhaps are two possible safeguards which this Court must insist upon. Attention is also required to be paid to properly develop work culture, training and orientation of the police force consistent with basic human values. Training methodology of the police needs restructuring. The force needs to be infused with basic human values and made sensitive to the constitutional ethos. Efforts must be made to change the attitude and approach of the police personnel handling investigations so that they do not sacrifice basic human values during interrogation and do not resort to questionable forms of interrogation. With a view to bring in transparency, the presence of the counsel of the arrestee at some point of time during the interrogation may deter the police from using third-degree methods during interrogation.

31. There is one other aspect also which needs our consideration. We are conscious of the fact that the police in India have to perform a difficult and delicate task, particularly in view of the deteriorating law and order situation, communal riots, political turmoil, student unrest, terrorist activities, and among others the increasing number of underworld and armed gangs and criminals. Many hardcore criminals like extremists, terrorists, drug peddlers, smugglers who have organised gangs, have taken strong roots in the society. It is being said in certain quarters that with more and more liberalisation and enforcement of fundamental rights, it would lead to difficulties in the detection of crimes committed by such categories of hardened criminals by soft peddling interrogation. It is felt in those quarters that if we lay too much of emphasis on protection of their fundamental rights and human rights, such criminals Page 16 of 35 may go scot-free without exposing any element or iota of criminality with the result, the crime would go unpunished and in the ultimate analysis the society would suffer. The concern is genuine and the problem is real. To deal with such a situation, a balanced approach is needed to meet the ends of justice. This is all the more so, in view of the expectation of the society that police must deal with the criminals in an efficient and effective manner and bring to book those who are involved in the crime. The cure cannot, however, be worst than the disease itself.

33. There can be no gainsaying that freedom of an individual must yield to the security of the State. The right of preventive detention of individuals in the interest of security of the State in various situations prescribed under different statutes has been upheld by the courts. The right to interrogate the detenus, culprits or arrestees in the interest of the nation, must take precedence over an individual's right to personal liberty. The Latin maxim salus populi suprema lex (the safety of the people is the supreme law) and salus republicae suprema lex (safety of the State is the supreme law) coexist and are not only important and relevant but lie at the heart of the doctrine that the welfare of an individual must yield to that of the community. The action of the State, however, must be "right, just and fair". Using any form of torture for extracting any kind of information would neither be "right nor just nor fair" and, therefore, would be impermissible, being offensive to Article 21. Such a crime- suspect must be interrogated -- indeed subjected to sustained and scientific interrogation -- determined in accordance with the provisions of law. He cannot, however, be tortured or subjected to third-degree methods or eliminated with a view to elicit information, extract confession or derive knowledge about his accomplices, weapons etc. His constitutional right cannot be abridged in the manner permitted by law, though in the very nature of things there would be qualitative difference in the method of interrogation of such a person as compared to an Page 17 of 35 ordinary criminal. Challenge of terrorism must be met with innovative ideas and approach. State terrorism is no answer to combat terrorism. State terrorism would only provide legitimacy to "terrorism". That would be bad for the State, the community and above all for the rule of law. The State must, therefore, ensure that various agencies deployed by it for combating terrorism act within the bounds of law and not become law unto themselves. That the terrorist has violated human rights of innocent citizens may render him liable to punishment but it cannot justify the violation of his human rights except in the manner permitted by law. Need, therefore, is to develop scientific methods of investigation and train the investigators properly to interrogate to meet the challenge."

14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court thereafter issued following requirements to be followed to all cases arrest or detention till legal provisions are made in this behalf as preventive measures in para 35 of judgment D.K. Basu ( supra) which reads as under:-

35. We, therefore, consider it appropriate to issue the following requirements to be followed in all cases of arrest or detention till legal provisions are made in that behalf as preventive measures:

(1) The police personnel carrying out the arrest and handling the interrogation of the arrestee should bear accurate, visible and clear identification and name tags with their designations. The particulars of all such police personnel who handle interrogation of the arrestee must be recorded in a register.

(2) That the police officer carrying out the arrest of the arrestee shall prepare a memo of arrest at the time of arrest and such memo shall be attested by at least one witness, who may either be a member of the family of the arrestee or a respectable person of the locality from where the arrest is made. It shall also be countersigned by the arrestee and shall contain the time and date of arrest.

Page 18 of 35

(3) A person who has been arrested or detained and is being held in custody in a police station or interrogation centre or other lock-up, shall be entitled to have one friend or relative or other person known to him or having interest in his welfare being informed, as soon as practicable, that he has been arrested and is being detained at the particular place, unless the attesting witness of the memo of arrest is himself such a friend or a relative of the arrestee. (4) The time, place of arrest and venue of custody of an arrestee must be notified by the police where the next friend or relative of the arrestee lives outside the district or town through the Legal Aid Organisation in the District and the police station of the area concerned telegraphically within a period of 8 to 12 hours after the arrest.

(5) The person arrested must be made aware of this right to have someone informed of his arrest or detention as soon as he is put under arrest or is detained.

(6) An entry must be made in the diary at the place of detention regarding the arrest of the person which shall also disclose the name of the next friend of the person who has been informed of the arrest and the names and particulars of the police officials in whose custody the arrestee is.

(7) The arrestee should, where he so requests, be also examined at the time of his arrest and major and minor injuries, if any present on his/her body, must be recorded at that time. The "Inspection Memo"

must be signed both by the arrestee and the police officer effecting the arrest and its copy provided to the arrestee. (8) The arrestee should be subjected to medical examination by a trained doctor every 48 hours during his detention in custody by a doctor on the panel of approved doctors appointed by Director, Health Services of the State or Union Territory concerned. Director, Health Services should prepare such a panel for all tehsils and districts as well.

Page 19 of 35

(9) Copies of all the documents including the memo of arrest, referred to above, should be sent to the Illaqa Magistrate for his record.

(10) The arrestee may be permitted to meet his lawyer during interrogation, though not throughout the interrogation. (11) A police control room should be provided at all district and State headquarters, where information regarding the arrest and the place of custody of the arrestee shall be communicated by the officer causing the arrest, within 12 hours of effecting the arrest and at the police control room it should be displayed on a conspicuous notice board.

15. In Shakila Abdul Gafar Khan (SMT) v. Vasant Raghunath Dhoble and another (2003) 7 SCC 749 the Hon'ble Supreme Court took cognizance of alarming increase in case of torture assault and death in police custody and non availability of direct evidence in such cases and held that custodial torture violates the basic rights of citizen and all the Courts were therefore advised to deal with such cases in a realistic manner and with the sensitivity they deserve.

16. In Munshi Singh Gautam (Dead) and others v. State of M.P.(2005) 9SCC 631 the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized on the approach to be taken in case of police atrocities/ custodial violence or death where there is lack of direct ocular evidence due to complicity of police personnel and held that exaggerated adherence to and insistence upon the establishment of proof beyond every reasonable doubt in such cases often results in miscarriage of justice and makes the justice delivery system suspect and vulnerable.

17. In Prithipal Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another 2012 (1) SCC 10 the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that there was Page 20 of 35 overwhelming necessity to curb the menace of police atrocities, custodial death and illegal detention and emphasized that there should be accountability of wrongdoer and responsibility of the State in case a person in police custody is deprived of his life except in accordance with procedure established by law. It was held that police atrocities are always violative of constitutional mandate. Tolerance of police atrocities would amount to acceptance of systematic subversion and erosion of rule of law. It shall be apt to reproduce para 25 to 34 and 86 which read as under:

"25. Police atrocities in India had always been a subject-matter of controversy and debate. In view of the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution, any form of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment is inhibited. Torture is not permissible whether it occurs during investigation, interrogation or otherwise. The wrongdoer is accountable and the State is responsible if a person in custody of the police is deprived of his life except in accordance with the procedure established by law. However, when the matter comes to the court, it has to balance the protection of fundamental rights of an individual and duties of the police. It cannot be gainsaid that freedom of an individual must yield to the security of the State. The Latin maxim salus populi est suprema lex--the safety of the people is the supreme law; and salus reipublicae suprema lex--the safety of the State is the supreme law, coexist. However, the doctrine of the welfare of an individual must yield to that of the community.

26. The right to life has rightly been characterised as "'supreme' and 'basic'; it includes both so-called negative and positive obligations for the State". The negative obligation means the overall prohibition on arbitrary deprivation of life. In this context, positive obligation requires that the State has an overriding obligation to protect the right to life of every person Page 21 of 35 within its territorial jurisdiction. The obligation requires the State to take administrative and all other measures in order to protect life and investigate all suspicious deaths.

27. The State must protect the victims of torture, ill-treatment as well as the human rights defender fighting for the interest of the victims, giving the issue serious consideration for the reason that victims of torture suffer enormous consequences psychologically. The problems of acute stress as well as a post-traumatic stress disorder and many other psychological consequences must be understood in the correct perspective. Therefore, the State must ensure prohibition of torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment to any person, particularly at the hands of any State agency/police force.

28. In addition to the protection provided under the Constitution, the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, also provides for protection of all rights to every individual. It inhibits illegal detention. Torture and custodial death have always been condemned by the courts in this country. In its 113th Report, the Law Commission of India recommended the amendment to the Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter called "the Evidence Act"), to provide that in case of custodial injuries, if there is evidence, the court may presume that injury was caused by the police having the custody of that person during that period. Onus to prove the contrary is on the police authorities. Law requires for adoption of a realistic approach rather than narrow technical approach in cases of custodial crimes. (Vide Dilip K. Basu v. State of W.B.

29. This Court in Raghbir Singh v. State of Haryana while dealing with torture in police custody observed : (SCC pp. 71-72, para 2) "2. We are deeply disturbed by the diabolical recurrence of police torture resulting in a terrible scare in the minds of common citizens that their lives and liberty are under a new peril when the guardians of the law gore human rights to death. The Page 22 of 35 vulnerability of human rights assumes a traumatic, torturesome poignancy [when] the violent violation is perpetrated by the police arm of the State whose function is to protect the citizen and not to commit gruesome offences against them as has happened in this case. Police lock-up if reports in newspapers have a streak of credence, are becoming more and more awesome cells. This development is disastrous to our human rights awareness and humanist constitutional order."

30. Similarly, in Gauri Shanker Sharma v. State of U.P. this Court held : (SCC pp. 666-67, paras 15 & 17) "15. ...it is generally difficult in cases of deaths in police custody to secure evidence against the policemen responsible for resorting to third-degree methods since they are in charge of police station records which they do not find difficult to manipulate as in this case.

17. ... The offence is of a serious nature aggravated by the fact that it was committed by a person who is supposed to protect the citizens and not misuse his uniform and authority to brutally assault them while in his custody. Death in police custody must be seriously viewed for otherwise we will help take a stride in the direction of police raj. It must be curbed with a heavy hand. The punishment should be such as would deter others from indulging in such behaviour. There can be no room for leniency."

31. In Munshi Singh Gautam this Court held that peculiar type of cases must be looked at from a prism different from that used for ordinary criminal cases for the reason that in a case where the person is alleged to have died in police custody, it is difficult to get any kind of evidence. The Court observed as under : (SCC pp. 638-39, paras 6-7) "6. Rarely in cases of police torture or custodial death, direct ocular evidence is available of the complicity of the police personnel, who alone can only explain the circumstances in which a person in their custody had died. Bound as they are by Page 23 of 35 the ties of brotherhood, it is not unknown that police personnel prefer to remain silent and more often than not even pervert the truth to save their colleagues....

7. The exaggerated adherence to and insistence upon the establishment of proof beyond every reasonable doubt by the prosecution, at times even when the prosecuting agencies are themselves fixed in the dock, ignoring the ground realities, the fact situation and the peculiar circumstances of a given case ... often results in miscarriage of justice and makes the justice- delivery system suspect and vulnerable. In the ultimate analysis society suffers and a criminal gets encouraged ... The courts must not lose sight of the fact that death in police custody is perhaps one of the worst kinds of crime in a civilised society governed by the rule of law and poses a serious threat to an orderly civilised society. Torture in custody flouts the basic rights of the citizens recognised by the Indian Constitution and is an affront to human dignity. Police excesses and the maltreatment of detainees/undertrial prisoners or suspects tarnishes the image of any civilised nation and encourages the men in 'khaki' to consider themselves to be above the law and sometimes even to become a law unto themselves. Unless stern measures are taken to check the malady of the very fence eating the crop, the foundations of the criminal justice-delivery system would be shaken and civilisation itself would risk the consequence of heading towards total decay resulting in anarchy and authoritarianism reminiscent of barbarism. The courts must, therefore, deal with such cases in a realistic manner and with the sensitivity which they deserve, otherwise the common man may tend to gradually lose faith in the efficacy of the system of the judiciary itself, which if it happens, will be a sad day, for anyone to reckon with."

Page 24 of 35

32. In State of U.P. v. Mohd. Naim the State of U.P. filed an appeal before this Court for expunging the following remarks made by the Allahabad High Court : (AIR p. 705, para 2) "2. ... '...that there is not a single lawless group in the whole of the country whose record of crime comes anywhere near the record of that organised unit which is known as the Indian police force.

... Where every fish barring perhaps a few, stinks, it is idle to pick out one or two and say that it stinks.'"

This Court held that such general remarks could not be justified nor were they necessary for disposal of the said case. The Court expunged the aforesaid adverse remarks. (See also People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India .

33. Undoubtedly, this Court has been entertaining petition after petition involving the allegations of fake encounters and rapes by police personnel of States and in a large number of cases transferred the investigation itself to other agencies and particularly CBI. (See Rubabbuddin Sheikh v. State of Gujarat .

34. Thus, in view of the above, in the absence of any research/data/material, a general/sweeping remark that a "substantial majority of the population in the country considered the police force as an institution which violates human rights"

cannot be accepted. However, in a given case if there is some material on record to reveal the police atrocities, the court must take stern action against the erring police officials in accordance with law.

86. Police atrocities are always violative of the constitutional mandate, particularly, Article 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) and Article 22 (person arrested must be informed the grounds of detention and produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours). Such provisions ensure that arbitrary arrest and detention are not made. Tolerance of police atrocities, as in the instant case, would amount to acceptance of systematic Page 25 of 35 subversion and erosion of the rule of law. Therefore, illegal regime has to be glossed over with impunity, considering such cases of grave magnitude."

18. In Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P. and others (2014) 2 SCC 1 the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the mandate of registration of FIR and laid down the mandatory principles:-

120) In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold:

120.1) Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.

120.2) If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not.

120.3) If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further.

120.4) The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence.

120.5) The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence. 120.6) As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.

Page 26 of 35

The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under:

a) Matrimonial disputes/ family disputes

b) Commercial offences

c) Medical negligence cases

d) Corruption cases

e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay.

The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry. 120.7) While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time bound and in any case it should not exceed 7 days. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry. 120.8) Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information received in a police station, we direct that all information relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said Diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned above.

19. The legal position on custodial torture was summed up by three Judge Bench decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. Ashwani Kumar v. Union of India and another (2020) 13 SCC 585 wherein while dealing with the issue of right to life and issue of custodial torture, it was observed as under:-

"4. The applicant predicating his case on the right to life and liberty and judgments of this Court had argued that custodial torture being crime against humanity which directly infracts and violates Article 21 of the Constitution, this Court should invoke and exercise Page 27 of 35 jurisdiction under Articles 141 and 142 of the Constitution for the protection and advancement of human dignity, a core and non- negotiable constitutional right. In D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal custodial torture and violence was described as a wound inflicted on the soul, so painful and paralysing that it engenders fear, rage, hatred and despair, and denigrates the individual. In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration and Others, this Court had observed that the prisoners have enforceable liberties, though devalued but never demonetised and, therefore, it is within the jurisdictional reach and range of this Court's writ to deal with prison and police caprice and cruelty. Similarly, in Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi and Others , this Court had observed that torture in any form is inhuman, degrading and offensive to human dignity and constitutes an inroad into the right to life and is prohibited by Article 21 of the Constitution, for no law authorises and no procedure permits torture or cruelty, inhuman or degrading treatment. Reference was made to Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which prohibits torture in all forms in absolute terms. Recently, in K.S. Puttaswamy and Another v. Union of India and Others this Court had once again emphased on the right to human dignity which, first and foremost, means the dignity of each human being 'as a human being'. When human dignity in a person's life is infringed and physical or mental welfare is negated and harmed, the Court would intervene to protect and safeguard constitutional values. Reference was also made to the decision in Romila Thapar and Others v. Union of India and Others claiming that despite existing law and repeated judicial decisions, custodial torture still remains rampant and widespread in India. Our attention was drawn to the report of Asian Centre for Human Rights which was based, inter alia, on the information and data furnished by the Government of India in Parliament, acknowledging 1674 custodial deaths, including 1530 deaths in judicial custody and 144 deaths in police custody during Page 28 of 35 the period 1st April 2017 to 28th February 2018. India has consistently and unequivocally condemned and deprecated custodial torture at international forums and has signed the UN Convention but the Government's reluctance to ratify the UN Convention, which envisages a comprehensive and standalone legislation, it was argued, is baffling and unintelligible. Indian statutory law at present is not in harmony and falls short on several accounts, both procedurally and substantively, with the UN Convention and, thus, there is an urgent and immediate need for an all-embracing standalone enactment based on the UN Convention. Articles 51(c) and 253 of the Constitution underscore the 'constitutional imperative' of aligning domestic laws with international law and obligations. The legislation as prayed, it was submitted, would fulfill the constitutional obligations of the Government of India and the constitutional goals which the Government ought to achieve. Accordingly, the directions as prayed for would not entrench upon Parliament's domain to enact laws as they directly relate to the protection and preservation of human rights. The directions are justified and necessary in view of the delay and inaction in enacting the law, notwithstanding the recommendations made by the National Human Rights Commission, report of the Law Commission of India in October 2017, and report of the Select Committee of Parliament dated 2 th December 2010 and repeated commitments made by the Indian Government. Reference was made to Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India and Others wherein this Court had highlighted the need for enactment of a suitable legislation to deal with mob violence/lynching in the country. Reliance was placed on judgments of this Court in Vishaka and Others v. State of Rajasthan and Others, Vineet Narain and Others v. Union of India Destruction of Public and Private Properties v. State of Andhra Pradesh , Lakshmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India, State of West Bengal v. Sampat Lal , K. Veeraswami v. Union of India and Delhi Judicial Service Association v. State of Gujarat. While referring Page 29 of 35 to Mahender Chawla v. Union of India , and other decisions including Tehseen S. Poonawalla (supra), it was argued that this Court has not flinched from suggesting, recommending, advising, guiding and directing the Government of India with respect to statutory enactments. It was submitted that the delay and inaction in implementing the constitutional obligation relates back to the year 1997 when India had signed the UN Convention, but the Government has failed to enact a comprehensive legislation despite commitments and recommendations made and noticed above. This, it was submitted, reflects unreasonable and unacceptable conduct of the Government in shielding infringement of Article 21 and violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the Court may issue directions to the Union of India to enact a law dealing with custodial torture in terms of the U.N. Convention."

20. Thus what can be taken to be settled is that, no doubt the police is under a legal duty and has legitimate right to arrest a criminal and to interrogate him during the investigation of an offence but it must be remembered that the law does not permit use of third degree methods or torture of accused in custody during interrogation and investigation with a view to solve the crime. End cannot justify the means.

21. The interrogation and investigation into a crime should be in true sense purposeful to make the investigation effective. By torturing a person and using third degree methods, the police would be accomplishing behind the closed doors what the demands of our legal order forbid. No society can permit it.

22. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, Kayum Chaudhary for whose benefit the instant petition has been filed is not even an accused and yet he prima facie appears to have been mercilessly tortured and beaten up by the In-Charge of Police Station, Chainpur. What Page 30 of 35 compounds the issue further is that even CCTV Cameras have not been installed in the police station despite the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court way back in the year 2015 in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal and others (2015) 8 SCC 744 wherein it was held that there was need for further direction that in every State an oversight mechanism be created whereby an independent committee would study the CCTV Camera footages and periodically publish a report of its observation thereupon. The central oversight body that had been ordered to be set by Ministry of Home Affairs to implement the plan of action with respect to use of videography in the crime scene during investigation pursuant to directions passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shafhi Mohammad v. State of H.P. (2018) 5 SCC 311 and was further directed to issue appropriate instruction in this regard at the earliest. Direction thereafter to ensure that CCTV Cameras are installed in each police station was thereafter issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by its order dated 16.07.2020 in Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh and others (2020) 7 SCC 397 and thereafter vide order dated 16.09.2020 passed in Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh (2020) SCC Online SC 999, all the States and Union Territories were directed to find out the exact position of CCTV Cameras quite police station as well as the constitution of the oversight committee in accordance with the order dated 03.04.2018 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Shafhi Mohammad case ( supra). Thereafter such directions and in addition thereto certain other directions were passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 02.12.2020 in Paramvir Singh Saini Page 31 of 35 v. Baljit Singh ( 2021) 1 SCC 184. However, the State of Jharkhand has blatantly violated and openly flouted the directions passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by not installing the CCTV Cameras in all the police station and now sought time up to 31st December, 2025 to do the needful albeit in different proceedings pending consideration before this Court.

23. Reverting back once again to the facts of the present case, the suspension order passed by the Superintendent of Police, Gumla prima facie acknowledges custodial torture of Kayum Chaudhary for whose benefit this instant petition has been filed. He has to be granted interim compensation which will not affect his right to claim additional compensation by way of civil/criminal action (refer: 3 Judge decision in Sube Singh v. State of Haryana and others (2006) 3 SCC 178) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it was by now well settled that the award of compensation against the State is an appropriate and effective remedy for redressal of an established infringement of a fundamental right under Article 21 by a public servant. The quantum of compensation would, however, depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and such award by way of public law remedy will not come in the way of the aggrieved person claiming additional compensation in a civil court, in the enforcement of the private law remedy in tort, nor come in the way of the criminal court ordering compensation under section 357 of the Code of Criminal procedure. It was further held that the award of compensation as a public law remedy for violation of fundamental rights enshrined under Page 32 of 35 Article 21 of the Constitution of India, in addition to private law remedy under the law of tort was evolved in the last two and half decades. It was also held that in case where there is custodial death or custodial torture or other violation of rights guaranteed under Article 21 is established, the Court may award compensation in a proceeding under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution of India.

24. Bearing in mind the aforesaid exposition of law, we direct the respondent State to pay, by way of interim compensation a sum of Rs.

1,00,000/- ( Rs. One Lakh only) within one week to the petitioner which, at the first instance, shall be paid by the State Government but shall thereafter be recovered from the erring officials/officers.

25. Counter affidavit be filed within four weeks.

26. In the meanwhile the Director General of Police is directed to immediately take the following steps for effective preventive measures in terms of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sube Singh's Case ( supra).

"49. Custodial violence requires to be tackled from two ends, that is, by taking measures that are remedial and preventive. Award of compensation is one of the remedial measures after the event. Effort should be made to remove the very causes, which lead to custodial violence, so as to prevent such occurrences. Following steps, if taken, may prove to be effective preventive measures:

(a) Police training should be reoriented, to bring in a change in the mindset and attitude of the police personnel in regard to investigations, so that they will recognise and respect human rights, and adopt thorough and scientific investigation methods.

(b) The functioning of lower level police officers should be continuously monitored and supervised by their superiors to prevent Page 33 of 35 custodial violence and ensure adherence to lawful standard methods of investigation.

(c) Compliance with the eleven requirements enumerated in D.K. Basu [(1997) 1 SCC 416 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 92] should be ensured in all cases of arrest and detention.

(d) Simple and foolproof procedures should be introduced for prompt registration of first information reports relating to all crimes.

(e) Computerisation, video-recording and modern methods of record maintenance should be introduced to avoid manipulations, insertions, substitutions and antedating in regard to FIRs, mahazars, inquest proceedings, post-mortem reports and statements of witnesses, etc. and to bring in transparency in action.

(f) An independent investigating agency (preferably the respective Human Rights Commissions or CBI) may be entrusted with adequate power, to investigate complaints of custodial violence against police personnel and take stern and speedy action followed by prosecution, wherever necessary.

The endeavour should be to achieve a balanced level of functioning, where police respect human rights, adhere to law, and take confidence-building measures (CBMs), and at the same time, firmly deal with organised crime, terrorism, white-collared crime, deteriorating law and order situation, etc."

27. The police should be well advised to bear in mind and constantly remember the following golden words of Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer in 'Random Reflections' wherein he had said:-

"Policing, like justicing, has therefore to be at the service of the people commanding the credibility of the community at large without fear or favour, affection or ill-will. Independence and accountability with commitment to the Rule of law, are as much rt the non-negotiable qualities of the invigilating, investigating police Page 34 of 35 force of the 'robed breathern' on the bench. If the investigative process fails, if the police presence to guard Law and Order is not functionally successful, the adjudicatory apparatus collapses and our adversarial system of justice becomes dysfunctional. The safety of society, sans police integrity, accountability, transparency and efficiency, suffers illusion and unreality."

28. List this case on 07.01.2026 when in addition to the counter affidavit, a compliance affidavit be filed by the Director General of Police, Jharkhand.

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) 08 /12/2025 N.A.F.R. Sharda/-

Uploaded On 09.12.2025 Page 35 of 35

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Jharkhand High Court